So 6’2” Nneka cancelled out Brunson 6’2”, Fowles 6’6”, Kizer 6’4”, Fagbenle 6’4”, that Nneka must be simply the best player in the world.

You're being deliberately obtuse right now. Voepel might have mentioned a few role-playing centers in her article, but I thought it was clear from context that, when she was talking about dominating, she was talking about the elite-level bigs, and not just every player in the WNBA that's over X inches tall. Ogwumike canceled out Fowles. She didn't need to cancel out Brunson, Kizer and Faqbenie, because they aren't the same caliber of player. In fact, unless they're being spoon-fed by better talent, Kizer and Faqbenie are pretty much non-entities, at this stage in their respective careers.

Minnesota's larger problem was that Brunson was not able to dominate outplay Carson, on a night where Moore didn't have it; that's why they lost. And the central point remains true: WNBA teams with elite bigs will win more games than they lose. But, when they play against other teams that also have elite bigs, the other stars need to step up. Minnesota's other star is Maya Moore. She didn't step up. So they lost. Saying that "it didn't help" against the Sparks, as if implying that Fowles had something to do with it, is mad specious.

So 6’2” Nneka cancelled out Brunson 6’2”, Fowles 6’6”, Kizer 6’4”, Fagbenle 6’4”, that Nneka must be simply the best player in the world.

You're being deliberately obtuse right now. Voepel might have mentioned a few role-playing centers in her article, but I thought it was clear from context that, when she was talking about dominating, she was talking about the elite-level bigs, and not just every player in the WNBA that's over X inches tall. Ogwumike canceled out Fowles. She didn't need to cancel out Brunson, Kizer and Faqbenie, because they aren't the same caliber of player. In fact, unless they're being spoon-fed by better talent, Kizer and Faqbenie are pretty much non-entities, at this stage in their respective careers.

Minnesota's larger problem was that Brunson was not able to dominate outplay Carson, on a night where Moore didn't have it; that's why they lost. And the central point remains true: WNBA teams with elite bigs will win more games than they lose. But, when they play against other teams that also have elite bigs, the other stars need to step up. Minnesota's other star is Maya Moore. She didn't step up. So they lost. Saying that "it didn't help" against the Sparks, as if implying that Fowles had something to do with it, is mad specious.

I think they lost because their perimeter players got outplayed by the Sparks perimeter players and Reeve got outcoached by Agler

_________________"Sue Bird and Lauren Jackson were and are the dynamic duo. They're the one-two punch. They're all the clich�s possible to describe people that perfectly complement each other, who make each other better and also bring out the best in the team." �Karen Bryant

_________________"Sue Bird and Lauren Jackson were and are the dynamic duo. They're the one-two punch. They're all the clich�s possible to describe people that perfectly complement each other, who make each other better and also bring out the best in the team." �Karen Bryant

[quote="Silky Johnson"][quote="bballjunkie"]So 6’2” Nneka cancelled out Brunson 6’2”, Fowles 6’6”, Kizer 6’4”, Fagbenle 6’4”, that Nneka must be simply the best player in the world.[/quote]

You're being deliberately obtuse right now. Voepel might have mentioned a few role-playing centers in her article, but I thought it was clear from context that, when she was talking about dominating, she was talking about the elite-level bigs, and not just every player in the WNBA that's over X inches tall. Ogwumike canceled out Fowles. She didn't need to cancel out Brunson, Kizer and Faqbenie, because they aren't the same caliber of player. In fact, unless they're being spoon-fed by better talent, Kizer and Faqbenie are pretty much non-entities, at this stage in their respective careers.

Minnesota's larger problem was that Brunson was not able to dominate outplay Carson, on a night where Moore didn't have it; that's why they lost. And the central point remains true: WNBA teams with elite bigs will win more games than they lose. But, when they play against other teams that also have elite bigs, the other stars need to step up. Minnesota's other star is Maya Moore. She didn't step up. So they lost. Saying that "it didn't help" against the Sparks, as if implying that Fowles had something to do with it, is mad specious.[/quote]

You could have saved yourself the 2 paragraphs, I was responding to your shooting comment. IMO a big is not as advantageous without shooting. Should have added the Shawshank obtuse quote but whatevs.

I think they lost because their perimeter players got outplayed by the Sparks perimeter players and Reeve got outcoached by Agler

I am not sure where these "hot takes" are coming from. The reason the Lynx lost that game is clear as day: they had 24 damn turnovers. All around sloppy play did them in.

I mean, 24 turnovers and it still took a circus shot at the buzzer to beat them...not exactly a sign of them being "outcoached" or any of the other supposed "reasons". It also means that it is a bad game to look at as far as dominating bigs. A team turns over the ball that much and there is little else that can be concluded from that game.

I think they lost because their perimeter players got outplayed by the Sparks perimeter players and Reeve got outcoached by Agler

I am not sure where these "hot takes" are coming from. The reason the Lynx lost that game is clear as day: they had 24 damn turnovers. All around sloppy play did them in.

I mean, 24 turnovers and it still took a circus shot at the buzzer to beat them...not exactly a sign of them being "outcoached" or any of the other supposed "reasons". It also means that it is a bad game to look at as far as dominating bigs. A team turns over the ball that much and there is little else that can be concluded from that game.

Sims and Gray outplayed the Lynx perimeter players, the Sparks scored most of their points in the paint while being severly undersized and the Lynx couldnt take advantage of them being undersized. I call that outcoached by Agler (he had a gameplan an it worked and Reeve couldnt adjust) and outplayed by Gray and Sims. But you can think whatever you want

_________________"Sue Bird and Lauren Jackson were and are the dynamic duo. They're the one-two punch. They're all the clich�s possible to describe people that perfectly complement each other, who make each other better and also bring out the best in the team." �Karen Bryant

I think they lost because their perimeter players got outplayed by the Sparks perimeter players and Reeve got outcoached by Agler

I am not sure where these "hot takes" are coming from. The reason the Lynx lost that game is clear as day: they had 24 damn turnovers. All around sloppy play did them in.

I mean, 24 turnovers and it still took a circus shot at the buzzer to beat them...not exactly a sign of them being "outcoached" or any of the other supposed "reasons". It also means that it is a bad game to look at as far as dominating bigs. A team turns over the ball that much and there is little else that can be concluded from that game.

Sims and Gray outplayed the Lynx perimeter players, the Sparks scored most of their points in the paint while being severly undersized and the Lynx couldnt take advantage of them being undersized. I call that outcoached by Agler (he had a gameplan an it worked and Reeve couldnt adjust) and outplayed by Gray and Sims. But you can think whatever you want

I think we watched different games. The Lynx did not play bad defense. They were hardly being scored on in droves. The Lynx shot 50% to the Sparks 40%. They out rebounded the Sparks 41 to 25.

The problem was that they had 18 more turnovers than the Sparks. This led to the Sparks taking 72 shots to the Lynx 55 (17 more shots). Even out those shots and the Lynx win in a blowout. It's really hard to blame anything else other than sloppy play and turnovers for the loss. (BTW, the supposedly "outplayed" Whalen scored 17 points and had 9 assists, while shooting 62%. The Sparks guards shot in the low 40s. Yes they scored more, but again, 17 more shots).